It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what you should know about the 14th Dalai Lama

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Its about Tibet and truth not china. Yes, communism in almost every form is evil system, or to be more accurate system is good but peoples make it evil... However in this case they bringed light to a very grim place... Sure, Tibet should have its authonomy but without monks that keept this place in dark ages to the day of invasion.

Why china needs Tibet? Answer is simple, water. And they will never give it away especially in time of climatic changes and populace growing at insane rate even with laws that let peoples to have only one child...




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LordHumungous
 


There are better ways to bring greater light to people, then conquering
them and forcing them to accept your ways! But of course you must have such a "light" before you can make people hunger and thirst for what you have.
Nothing the current Chinese government has done. Leads me to believe
they have there neighbors, best interest at heart.
They should have sent communist missionaries into Tibet. Bearing gifts.
Won the Tibetans over with love and their superior characters! Then the Tibetans themselves would have seen the inferiority of the Monks and demanded change. Instead of coming in and being just as bad, or worse, then the leaders they want to replace.
Get a clue!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Howie47]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordHumungous
Sad truth is that hes right about Tibet.
Yes, dont listen to all kinds of idiots, hippies, meditating movie stars and just check it yourself, before chinese invasion tibet was like hell for peasants, it was hell for everyone exept monks!
They were terated like animals, even worse. All of them were working for monks who owned them, yes, OWNED THEM like items!
There was special torture, for example, applied to peasant who travelled without permission, these peace loving monks had a scissors that were used to cut back of his feet..


And so on. But why does that mean thats what would happen again if they were given independence? Whats wrong with considering that they might want a choice of who rules them? And if they want to go back to that, or thats how they feel, that doesn't really say anything good about the current Chinese rule does it?

Of course you seem to be saying that people don't change over the course of 50 years, and that a restoration of the Dalai Lama's rule would just go back to how it used to be. It looks sort of like how the Iraqi people reacted to the Coalition forces, at first they may have appreciated it, but afterwards they don't like it and want their own country back.

And unless they really need Tibet for something, though as they have plenty of farmland etc already, I can't see why they would, it can't have much strategic value militarily, not if they need a curfew to keep the local population in line with their rule. They could just let them have more independence, than they do at the moment, even if they were just like, say, Hong Kong, which as I understand it, isn't completely under PRC control.

China needs to learn that the solution to all their problems is not necessarily military force.

And as a side note, why did China control adjacent countries, like the USSR did? Is it somehow mandatory for Communist regimes to steal other countries?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Why would the people in China care about Tibet where is the beef. I cant see what the dalai Lama has to do with every person in Tibet, even if he has done bad things to people in his country why does the whole country have to be taken over by China. In what way does this benefit them. For you people trying to justify taking Tibet why do you support the killing of monks it isnt the Dalai Lama that the are killing in the streets it is peaceful Monk's. What have they done to you or China its self. You should take a step back and look at what your government is doing to me it sounds like they are very scared of people thinking for them selves. How would you like it if America came into your country and took it over for things China have done in the past or because we didnt like China's stance on something. Try being in the monks shoes for a day or whatever they wear how would you feel to be from Tibet right know.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Even under the Dalai lama before the invasion in 1949, there was a civil administration in Tibet called the Kashag.

I don't think the people of Tibet would tolerate restoring the rule of the monks again either, but the Dalai Lama presuming there was a restored Tibet would probably hold the same role as a monarch or President, with an elected parliament.

On the other hand the people of Tibet want to live their own culture and that ought to be their right. Nor should their right to develop their own nation as they see fit be impeded.

The infrastructure brought by China, roads, electricity, railway and airports are all to support China's expansion into Tibet. Tibet is also home to China's ballistic missile silos. The roads and as we saw with these riots the railways too were designed to allow the speedy deployment of troops, not to fight India but to suppress Tibetans.

I re-iterate why if the Tibetan system before the Chinese was so awful have 2.3 million Tibetans fled to India since 1959 ?

Someone asked about why the need for a huge palace (the Potala)?
Well the Potala was a monastic home for about 600 monks too.

The Potala was built in just 4 years from 1645 to 1649 long before we in the west were building high rise buildings and even had special earthquake absorbing foundations.

The first born sons or daughters of every family automatically became monks at age 9 and this was how the population got an education. They were free to leave as teenagers but many would choose to stay on.

I don't understand an earlier question about translation of the scriptures. Tibet had high literacy in their Sanskrit language called Pali, which is nothing related to the Chinese language or culture.






posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ikaruga

First, let me start out by saying that I am an American who has been living all over China for the past three years.
...China is completely in the right here...


You're 'Chinese-American', right? So your heart is Chinese and feels the need to defend China's actions. Understandable. Just so we know where we are...


...gobernment has spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years to build railroads to Tibet


Or Singaporean-Chinese-American? That's how Singaporeans say and write 'gobernment'


Most people in the West are chanting "Free Tibet!" when they don't know the first thing about Tibet or China...


You may be right about this. However, some of us know China very well, have spent a lot of time there and have also visited Tibet. So we do know what we are talking about, up to a point.


The Dalai Lama supposedly preaches about the necessity and divnity of non-violent protest, but Tibetans are ganging up on defenseless Han Chinese and beating the daylights out of them solely because they are not Tibetan. Does that sound very non-violent to you?


You know perfectly well - or should do - that the DL in no way supports such violent and hot-headed actions, and repeatedly goes on the public record to condemn them. So your association of this violence with the DL is disingenuous. He even goes so far as to say that if the violence persists he will renounce his office as spiritual leader of the nation, as he will in no way be associated with such actions.

The attitude of the Chinese regime to Tibet over the past 58 years has been something like 'You are going to have what we know is good for you, whether you want it or not.' They view Tibet as just another province of China which belongs to them, as the German government of the time viewed Poland between 1939-45. They think they are doing the Tibetans a favor, by forcibly 'modernizing' them. But basically most Tibetans do not want to be patronized in this way, particularly by violent military force which tries to erase everything which makes their culture and values unique and precious. They have never been offered any choice, any vote, any chance of dissent. It has just been IMPOSED on them by force.

You can't do this to people and expect no resentment. People have to come to things on their own, freely and in their own time, and in full knowledge and agreement. You can't just invade and impose on them and then say 'Now you're going to do things this way, because we're the masters now and we say it's better for you.'

Or don't you get this?

Maybe not.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Its bad about what we hear about Tibet . People protested in UK to free tibet were arrested not by UK police but by men dressed like . Hmm people of NWO .. US is strictly in this game with china . Chineese what to expand with tibet with rich resources .. Poor tibet people trying to protect thier religion and lands .. Lots of Temples were destroyed and people were forced out of budhism .. Better not to talk about chinees . they are m u r d e r s ..



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So Ikaruga...



China is completely in the right here. Imagine if Texas, which used to be it's own country, started setting US government buildings on fire and attacking other people in Texas who were not true Texans. It's pretty much the same thing.


Texas was a territory which when attacked by Mexico sought to join the union with USA as I understand it so the analogy is not the same.

Here's an analogy which you might understand. Starting in 1937 Japan took over Manchuria after faking a pretext for invasion.

In 1949 Maoists bribed a Tibetan Governor in eastern Tibet to invite China to invade on a fake pretext of liberating the masses.

Like Nanking there were fierce battles and executions. The people of Tibet like the people of China were occupied and ruled at gunpoint.



And I just can't understand why so many Americans are on these boards talking trash about how the Chinese aren't welcome in Tibet and therefore should leave.


... but you can understand that the Japanese weren't welcome in China and should leave ?



haha u really have no idea what u are talking about. do u think the news about china in the usa is not biased?? have u ever been to china or even had a conversation with a chinese person??


Yes I have several Chinese friends who are current Chinese citizens. I am trying to learn mandarin from them. I have no hatred for the Chinese people, but what your country is doing in Tibet stinks.

All my Chinese friends are still angry at the Japanese over their WW2 invasion of China.

You can't relate to Tibetan anger and hatred of China yet you can relate to China's feeling of anger when it was invaded ?





posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

He wants a free Tibet, and is actively campaigning for help and for the freedom of Tibet. China wants Tibet to surrender, and he is an annoyance, and a possible threat to their cause. Of course they will say every negative thing they can about him, whether they are being truthful, and unbiased or not. I suspect not..


Yes, but The America Government doesn't kill their citizens, there are conspiracy theorists that say otherwise...but when you have a serial killer that could be found innocent, it's hard to believe that the government always takes lives with a whim. The Chinese government however is an evil institution, and who cares if the Dalai Lama had slaves? You are a slave to your own government, a tool and nothing more. You will never enjoy freedom, because you'll never have it.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex

China needs to learn that the solution to all their problems is not necessarily military force.

And as a side note, why did China control adjacent countries, like the USSR did? Is it somehow mandatory for Communist regimes to steal other countries?


Hmm...maybe it's time the USA learned the same thing. Is it somehow mandatory for countries like America, England, France, and Spain to steal other countries that are basically defenseless, exploit them for all their resources, and then leave when their country has nothing left?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
You're 'Chinese-American', right? So your heart is Chinese and feels the need to defend China's actions. Understandable. Just so we know where we are...


No, neither me friend or I, who share this account, are Chinese-American. We are both caucasian. Then again, what difference would it make? The truth is the truth regardless of who is speaking it.


Originally posted by bovarcher
Or Singaporean-Chinese-American? That's how Singaporeans say and write 'gobernment'


I suppose you have never made a typo. Congratulations on your super-human like skills. My tone of writing is obviously indicative of a native speaker.



Originally posted by bovarcher
You may be right about this. However, some of us know China very well, have spent a lot of time there and have also visited Tibet. So we do know what we are talking about, up to a point.


Ok, fair enough. My friend and I have been very forthcoming in the forms about our experiences in China. Would you be so kind as to back up your personal knowledge of China with some references to provinces traveled to and time spent?


Originally posted by bovarcher
You know perfectly well - or should do - that the DL in no way supports such violent and hot-headed actions, and repeatedly goes on the public record to condemn them. So your association of this violence with the DL is disingenuous. He even goes so far as to say that if the violence persists he will renounce his office as spiritual leader of the nation, as he will in no way be associated with such actions.


The Dalai Lama said he would resign as de facto leader of Tibet if the violence persists and NOT as Dalai Lama. This situation would actually be advantageous for the Dalai Lama since he still be able to hold a very high post in all Tibetans lives while someone else could "lead" the Tibetans in fighting and revolution. I am still not completely sure why you are only looking at this from one side.


Originally posted by bovarcher
The attitude of the Chinese regime to Tibet over the past 58 years has been something like 'You are going to have what we know is good for you, whether you want it or not.' They view Tibet as just another province of China which belongs to them, as the German government of the time viewed Poland between 1939-45. They think they are doing the Tibetans a favor, by forcibly 'modernizing' them. But basically most Tibetans do not want to be patronized in this way, particularly by violent military force which tries to erase everything which makes their culture and values unique and precious. They have never been offered any choice, any vote, any chance of dissent. It has just been IMPOSED on them by force.


How many Tibetans have you talked to about this? Tibet is an extremely impoverished region which has recently enjoyed an increase in the standard of living due to China's efforts. I have personally seen and spoke with Tibetan minorities throughout China and they all don't feel like you and Richard Gere.


Originally posted by bovarcher
You can't do this to people and expect no resentment. People have to come to things on their own, freely and in their own time, and in full knowledge and agreement. You can't just invade and impose on them and then say 'Now you're going to do things this way, because we're the masters now and we say it's better for you.'


What, kind of like the United States does in Iraq and other countries?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcardYes, but The America Government doesn't kill their citizens, there are conspiracy theorists that say otherwise...but when you have a serial killer that could be found innocent, it's hard to believe that the government always takes lives with a whim. The Chinese government however is an evil institution, and who cares if the Dalai Lama had slaves? You are a slave to your own government, a tool and nothing more. You will never enjoy freedom, because you'll never have it.


Really? I disagree. Here are some examples: the Native Americans, the Slaves, Branch Davidians, the Freemen, Gulf War Syndrome, use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, etc.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by ikaruga]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
whew -what a long thread to get thru just to spout my 2 cents
just an observation - China is obviously very worried about the Tibet issue mucking up their self-aggrandizing Olympics spectacle - to the extent that they are using even (relatively) obscure sites like this to expound their propaganda
also, its interesting how they are trying to disguise themselves/their messengers as ordinary joe's just expousing individual personal opinions
nice try - but scary the extent to which they will go



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


My God, that is extremely paranoid. Once again, I am American. Born and raised in the Midwest. I don't work for the Chinese government, nor do I want to.

If you honestly believe that the Chinese government has nothing better to do then monitor what people say on ATS, you have lost all grip on reality.

Haha...I am not expounding propaganda. I am just sick of seeing the world constantly criticize China when they have a very superifical understanding of China and Asia in general.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ikaruga

No, neither me friend or I, who share this account, are Chinese-American. We are both caucasian. Then again, what difference would it make? The truth is the truth regardless of who is speaking it.


I stand corrected. You come over like an official PRC Gov spokesperson. The 'truth' here is your opinion v. the opinion of others, right?

And if you've spent time in Singapore you'll know they always refer to the 'gobernment' even in writing - sorry but that's what it looked like, and not a typo.



Would you be so kind as to back up your personal knowledge of China with some references to provinces traveled to and time spent?


A comprehensive narrative would fill 20 pages of this thread.

But in brief: I lived in HK 1995-97. I traveled very extensively overland in Guangdong & Guangxi, and still do a lot of business in Dongguang, Tai Ping and Chang-An where I own injection molds which are managed and operated by Chinese business partners.

My Han Chinese partner originally comes from Hainan but her family is based in Guangzhou, where we kept a flat until 2004. I have spent a total of about 4 months in Guangzhou over the years. (They like to eat snake which I have tried on several occasions but never got the taste for).

I have visited Beijing on seven separate occasions over 15 years, most recently in October 2006 (what a change from 15 years ago), and Shanghai on five occasions. We usually stayed in Jing-Jang Tower with the revolving restaurant on the roof. I don't like Shanghai actually, whereas most Chinese and visitors seem to love it. If you want a modern thriving fashionable city, Hong Kong is better and the quality of life is better too.

Neither do I like the endless industrial landscapes of Guangdong and Guangxi, but those regions are where most of China's wealth-generating manufacturing is based so economically vital. I never saw pollution like in Guangdong, save perhaps in India.

I have traveled through the Yangtse region a lot by train and bus, and visited Hangzhou, Souzhou and Nanjing several times. I have a major business project going on at present with a company in Nanjing and visit there every six months (I really like Nanjing actually). I spent 6 days in Chongqing in 2001 which even then was modernising fast and was surprised that a huge modern city existed in such a spectacular and remote location. Chang Kai-Shek's government was based there and he made a good choice.

I traveled through Yunnan on an overland backpacking trip from Thailand and Burma in 1994, and visited Tibet in April 1998 when we stayed at the enormous and extraordinary Lhasa Hotel. I had a problem with altitude sickness but fortunately they supply oxygen to guests who arrive from lower altitudes until they get used to it.

Lhasa was a very interesting and complex place and you could feel the palpable tension between the indiginous Tibetan and imported Han populations even in 1998. Tibetans in those days were very definitely seen as second-class citizens, almost primitive sub-humans, by the Han visitors and I cannot say if this has changed or moderated in the past 10 years because I haven't been back.

This is just an overview of places visited, not of my feelings about and experiences in China which would go on for pages and pages. But they would be mainly positive. I missed out a lot of places I have visited by the way.

By the way I don't speak Putoghua well but can follow a conversation and get by day-to-day. I don't read it well either and would only recognize about 40 characters with certainty.



The Dalai Lama said he would resign as de facto leader of Tibet if the violence persists and NOT as Dalai Lama. This situation would actually be advantageous for the Dalai Lama since he still be able to hold a very high post in all Tibetans lives while someone else could "lead" the Tibetans in fighting and revolution. I am still not completely sure why you are only looking at this from one side


Because that's more or less how I see it. You might address the question to other posters on this thread.



How many Tibetans have you talked to about this?


About 20, mostly in London.


Tibet is an extremely impoverished region which has recently enjoyed an increase in the standard of living due to China's efforts.


True, but this is not the point. Neither were most of the former colonies in Africa appreciative of the British exporting billions of GBP in capital and building roads, railway systems, schools, hospitals and government buildings during the colonial period. Because, like Tibet, the investment and material gain is not the point.


I have personally seen and spoke with Tibetan minorities throughout China and they all don't feel like you and Richard Gere.


I have no idea how Richard Gere feels. I have not met him nor heard his views. But if your tame Tibetans feel as you report, then good for them and I wish them well.


What, kind of like the United States does in Iraq and other countries?


If you suppose for one moment that I support, or have ever supported in any way, the US govt's invasion of Iraq and subsequent policies in the region then you are gravely mistaken.

Best wishes.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ikaruga


Hmm...maybe it's time the USA learned the same thing. Is it somehow mandatory for countries like America, England, France, and Spain to steal other countries that are basically defenseless, exploit them for all their resources, and then leave when their country has nothing left?


Only China still seems to be doing it, like in Tibet. And while the USA is in Iraq, they seem in the process of getting out, and never really intended to stay there indefinitely. China didn't really give a choice whether or not Tibetans wanted them there, nor do they show any sign of leaving.

And as for Colonialism, not much of it is still happening, as far as I am aware. And at least that had a pretext of colonies and trade etc, rather than 'liberating' them.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ikaruga
reply to post by wayno
 


My God, that is extremely paranoid. Once again, I am American. Born and raised in the Midwest. I don't work for the Chinese government, nor do I want to.

If you honestly believe that the Chinese government has nothing better to do then monitor what people say on ATS, you have lost all grip on reality.

Haha...I am not expounding propaganda. I am just sick of seeing the world constantly criticize China when they have a very superifical understanding of China and Asia in general.


I don't know about the world but I do understand China and Asia. By this I mean the Asian mentality. This point is important because, curiously enough , and although I am anti PRC, I do concede that the Chinese have some facts right about the "DL" and the situation in which most Tibetan peasants found themselves in before Chinese occupation. I will go as far as to say that most are probably better off under PRC rule then under the Theocratic rule of some half senile monk. I would just like to state a few points, that I think are balanced, reasonable and can clarify the subject :

a) The fact that Tibet was one of the poorest countries in the world, that it lived under a strict feudal like system, that the majority of it's people were seen as, an treated as, sub-human animals (probably better then a dog but worst then a pig), does not justify the Chinese invasion and the millions it killed.

b) The fact that the DL is a Buddhist monk doesn't grant him any special divine right to be anointed as the "peace guardian of the world", or the "holy one". These westerners make me sick, don't understand anything about Asian mentality and are just hippie dung, as far as I am concerned. Some of the most brutal regimes in the world are Buddhist (Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Bhutan, Nepal...). I have personally been in the "presence" of the DL and didn't notice any beaming light coming out of him, or any special knowledge, or any sanctity. He is an average intelligent person that just happens to somehow have an immense wealth, not of knowledge but of money, talks about what an average person talks, likes to read, likes to laugh, to eat and so on.

That's two points for our esteemed PRC friends.

c) Why would the PRC care about a million, or so, Tibetans that were killed during occupation? Why would they care about the ones being killed or injured now?
The PRC is responsible for more then one hundred million people dying, in mainland China alone, that's 100.000.000 people, or one third of the population of the USA, ore the whole of Germany, or France or the UK. So what's another million, or so, to them, let alone a few hundred in these recent riots?

d) The PRC is responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam, in North Korea in Cambodia, in Sudan and in the inner provinces of China (by inner provinces I mean everything outside the major cities). Why would a PRC puppet living in one of these cities, care for a couple of Tibetans?

The point I'm trying to make is that Asian mentality, be it Buddhist or not, has no respect, worst, as no conception of the individual. If a million must be killed to build a dam so be it; if a million must be killed to divert a river who cares? If a couple of million must be killed due to a pissing contest with the USSR, or with India, or with the USA, who cares?
This doesn't apply to China alone, it applies to every Asian country, specially to, yes you guessed it, countries with strong Buddhist influence. Where the concept of individuality, such as we perceive it in the West, is non existent so is the concept of mass murder and holocaust.

So yes, I do know Asia, yes I do know it's mentality and the mentality of it's people...I just don't like it.

**To be continued**



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
**Continuation of my last post**

Every Asian that you meet, specially the ones from PRC, former Cambodia, Myanmar and Nepal, will tell you, if asked, about a relative that was killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of the actions of their government. What you will find strange, as a westerner, as that they will talk about it like we talk about the death of a cat, or a canary or a goldfish. It is just something that happened, and will happen again, to some member of their families.

I am absolutely certain that at least some of our PRC posters have had a member of their family killed, tortured or imprisoned, after all the "Cultural Revolution" affected almost every family in mainland China. I am sure that some of them may have contributed to the death, or torture of a family member, or a friend, after all the "Cultural Revolution" was all about turning in your "heretic" relatives and friends. Destroy the individual to save the revolution, that is the Asian mentality. Enslave the peasants to serve the "living god", that to is the Asian mentality. Kill the drug addict to preserve society, sell your infant child to prostitution, to obtain hard currency from mentally sick middle aged westerners. The list goes on and on...

The sad thing is that many western idiot losers, a.k.a. hippies, look upon these societies, and their false prophets, as having some sort of special knowledge, some unique vision of the universe...

Also sad is that the other faction of the western idiot losers, a.k.a. commies, reds, look upon these societies as an answer to Capitalism, or as an answer to their anti-American views of the world.

How can everybody be right, when everybody is wrong?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I respect your opinions and the opinions of Northwolfe.

It's nice to see someone is actually thinking about the subject rather than taking potshots at grammar and espousing politcal generalizations that they know little about nor care to
know, even if we don't agree.


This is what I call progress.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Let me guess, Crazyboy: you are Chinese?


OMG this is the first thing I wanted to ask him

he can't provide any source because he's desperate the whole world is behind the most peaceful, compassionate living person on Earth
FYI The Chinese are the most ruthless and greedy, no need source for that


[edit on 21-3-2008 by keops]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join